When is a saving not a saving?

WITH regard to your front page article 'States ''silo'' working led to £5m. in failed savings' (17 April).

Only government can state that increasing charges equates to a saving. The definition of saving is 'an economy or reduction in money, time or another resource'. Increasing costs is none of these, so therefore I suggest the income generated cannot possibly be classed as an FTP saving and as such, any payments made to Tribal/Capita are void and are repaid. (That will save £325,000 in fees alone.)

I'm also sure that all the works that have gone on at the Harbour/Town seafront (including the road realignment, dredging, pontoons etc., etc.) will have cost a six-figure sum by the end of the day (not to mention the cost of nearly 100 planters to be installed on the Albert Pier). Oh, did I see a photo of a cruise tender high and dry on the Albert pontoon today?

Both Harbours and Environment keep spouting on about the works being necessary for safety reasons, but can they please provide details of incidents over the past five years in these areas which make this work more critical than the proposed work at the Salerie where a life was lost last year?

Finally, the Environment response to the letter from K. S. Betts made me smile. (Opinion, 17 April) The reason? The response is almost identical (some areas word for word) to an email sent from Deputy Burford to a colleague of mine a few days ago. Was the email a pre-prepared one that Environment have concocted ready to wheel out when anyone challenges them, or are they taking lessons from the Ed Miliband school of repeating yourself?

BOB FARRELL,

bobfarrell50@gmail.com